Willamette Law Online

(37 summaries)

Emily Oliver

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Medina-Nunez v. LynchImmigration: An alien’s acceptance into the Family Unity Program, without inspection, does not qualify under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) for the seven-year residency requirement to file an application for cancellation of removal.(06-08-2015)
Kohn Law Group v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss.Civil Procedure: The first-to-file rule allows for a federal court to stay a proceeding before it if it finds that substantially similar parties are litigating similar issues in another district court.(06-04-2015)
Kohler v. Bed Bath & BeyondDisability Law: It is not required under the Americans with Disabilities Act that there be wall space within the maneuvering clearance next to the frame of a restroom door that must be pulled open, unless it is equipped with a “latch.”(02-19-2015)
Corbello v. Valli Copyright: An implied license, which may be effective regardless of a reversionary clause in a contractual agreement, may be inferred from the objective intent of the licensor, as well as those others involved, at the time of the creation and delivery of the work.(02-10-2015)
United States v. Ortiz Evidence: Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) allows the government to offer a tape recording of the defendant’s voice into evidence if it can make a prima facie case that the voice is the defendant’s, which can be established by demonstrating minimal familiarity with the voice.(01-23-2015)
Redding Rancheria v. JewellIndian Law: The “restoration of lands” exception to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act permits one casino on restored tribe’s land if there is a “modern,” “historical,” and “temporal” connection to the land presently in question and the Tribe’s original land.(01-20-2015)
Williams v. ParamoPost-Conviction Relief: In order for a defendant who already has three strikes to file in forma pauperis, they will have to allege, either through declaration or affidavit, a “continued existence of imminent danger at the time the notice of appeal is filed.”(01-07-2015)
Burrell v. ColvinAdministrative Law: When an administrative law judge denies social security disability benefits the judge must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s complaint. (12-31-2014)
Arduini v. HartCivil Procedure: Issue preclusion prevents a moving party, who is in privity with other prior plaintiff’s, from suing on the same or ultimately same issue against a defendant who has already prevailed on the issue, despite new legal or factual arguments. (12-17-2014)
Gabriel v. AEPFRemedies: The availability of the equitable remedy of a surcharge is dependent on whether the pleading party adequately proves harm and causation, not reliance, as a result of a breach of fiduciary duty.(12-16-2014)
United States v. Gavilanes-Ocaranza Criminal Law: The revocation of a supervised release does not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial or a trial by jury. (11-25-2014)
Corber v. Xanodyne ParmaceuticalsCivil Law: In a mass action suit, where the plaintiffs seek permission for coordination “all of the actions [] for all purposes,” creates federal jurisdiction for the claims under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. (11-18-2014)
Thurbon v. Gateway Unified Sch. Dist. Appellate Procedure: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals only has jurisdiction to hear appeals of final judgments, with the exception of collateral orders; the disqualification of counsel and ethical sanctions intertwined with the disqualification of counsel are generally not considered collateral orders and therefore not within the Court’s jurisdiction. (11-06-2014)
United States v. SwisherFirst Amendment: The First Amendment does not prohibit Congress from criminalizing the action of wearing unauthorized military medals or ribbons with the intent to deceive others.(10-29-2014)
United States v. BellCivil Procedure: There is a Sixth Amendment violation when a defendant is precluded from making closing arguments at trail; however, there is no constitutional right for a self-represented defendant to be prompted to make such arguments. (10-22-2014)
Lopez-Valenzuela v. ArpaioCriminal Law: If bail is denied for certain serious felony offenses based on the illegal immigration status of the accused, and there is a great presumption of guilt for the charge in question, the substantive component of Due Process granted under the Fourteenth Amendment is violated and is considered to be unlawful pretrial punishment.(10-15-2014)
United States v. Bryant Criminal Law: In tribal courts, uncounseled, past convictions resulting in imprisonment may not be used against the defendant in subsequent proceedings; however, past convictions may be used where the statutes serve as “enforcement mechanisms for civil disabilities” and if the tribal court guarantees a right to counsel. (09-30-2014)
ICNU v. BPAConstitutional Law: The Appropriations Clause does not establish a duty in which a business that is funded by a permanent appropriation, or revolving fund, must recover subsidies that were improperly distributed, so long as the behavior is not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”(09-18-2014)
United States v. JohnsonCriminal Law: If proven by the preponderance of the evidence, a defendant forfeits his/her right to confrontation if he/she engages in or acquiesces to witness tampering. (09-12-2014)
Doe v. Nestle USA, Inc.Tort Law: There is no definite rule of corporate immunity or liability, so for each Alien Tort Statute claim, international law will determine corporate liability and domestic tort law will determine whether a corporation is subject to the standards underlying the claim.(09-04-2014)
Alexander v. FedExEmployment Law: An employers right to control the manner and means of a worker in order to achieve a desired result tends to show the worker’s status is that of an employee.(08-27-2014)
Pacific Shores Hospital v. UBHInsurance Law: When entrusted with a fiduciary duty, fiduciaries must perform their duties with “care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances” compared with that of a reasonable person in a like position.(08-20-2014)
United States v. GadsonEvidence: Statements deflecting blame are not an admissible exception to hearsay.(08-19-2014)
Nguyen v. HolderImmigration: An alien’s petition for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture may be reviewed when there is substantial evidence tending to prove that the individual would be tortured in their land of origin. (08-14-2014)
La Quinta Worldwide v. Q.R.T.M.Trademarks: With regard to trademark infringement, consumer confusion must be analyzed by weighing eight factors in order to determine the likelihood of confusion; and, before a permanent injunction may be granted, the court must take into account all relevant facts, balancing each party’s interests.(08-06-2014)
Compton v. Countrywide Financial Corp.Civil Law: In determining whether to dismiss an unfair and deceptive trade practice claim a district court need only address whether the complaint adequately alleged that the lender used unfair or deceptive acts in its relationship with the borrower, not whether the lender breached a duty of ordinary care.(08-04-2014)
United States v. SzaboCriminal Law: When a non-public forum implements restrictions on speech or conduct they do not necessarily violate the First or Fifth Amendments so long as the regulations administered are reasonable for the purpose of the forum and they are viewpoint neutral.(07-28-2014)
E.M. v. Pajaro Valley USD Disability Law: A school district is given deference to determine whether a child may be classified as a "child with a disability" because of the ambiguous intent of Congress in 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)(i); and, the agency's interpretation will take effect unless it is inconsistent or plainly erroneous to the regulation. (07-15-2014)
The Arc of California v. DouglasCivil Law: While a home- and community-based services waiver may serve as a bypass to the Medicaid Act, when there is irreparable harm as a result of the waiver, it may be enough to warrant a preliminary injunction. (06-30-2014)
United States v. RodriguezCriminal Law: Medical negligence can only be asserted as an affirmative defense in a murder trial in the event that the superseding act was extraordinary and unforeseeable, therefore breaking the logical chain of proximate cause, absolving the defendant(s) from murder.(06-19-2014)
Sinibaldi v. Redbox Corporations: When a zip code, in connection with a self-serve kiosk, is asked of a customer the information does not violate the California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 because it falls under an exemption in Cal. Civ. Code § 1747.08(c)(1) where a “card is being used as a deposit to secure payment in the event of default, loss, damage, or other similar occurrence.”(06-06-2014)
FTC v. BurnLounge, Inc.Corporations: A multi-level marketing business can be classified as a pyramid scheme when it satisfies the two-prong Webster v. Omnitron International, Inc. test, by making people buy the rights to sell that business’ product and providing cash incentives for recruiting new participants to purchase the right to sell that product.(06-02-2014)
Pyramid Tech. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co.Evidence: Expert testimony that meets the standards of the Federal Rules of Evidence is admissible in court for a trier of fact to determine its correctness so long as a court deems the opinions to be based on sound methodology and relevant principles within the expertise of the aficionado. (05-19-2014)
United States v. PrestonCriminal Law: Police officers using coercive measures against a person who is mentally handicapped in order to determine if a crime has been committed violates constitutional rights because that confession is involuntary, thereby making the confession inadmissible.(05-12-2014)
Brown v. Oregon Dept. of Corr.Constitutional Law: An inmate’s claim for monetary damages due to a violation of their procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment will not prevail where state officials,reasonably performing within their official capacities, do not deprive an inmate of a constitutional right if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. (04-29-2014)
United States v. TaylorCriminal Law: Willfully withholding materially false information to persuade or otherwise attempt to persuade a judge may permit a judge to add an obstruction of justice enhancement to a defendant’s pending case under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1.(04-18-2014)
Eldee-K Rental Properties v. DIRECTVProperty Law: The local action doctrine applies to “actions to recover or determine rights or interests in real property, actions to remedy injuries to real property, and actions to foreclose on liens and mortgages on real property.” As a result, other actions not falling into those categories are transitory.(04-09-2014)